Cover not available

In:A Comparative History of the Literary Draft in Europe
Edited by Olga Beloborodova and Dirk Van Hulle
[Comparative History of Literatures in European Languages XXXV] 2024
► pp. 241–252

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

1.3.2
Revision

Rereading, reliving, rewriting

Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 8 November 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/chlel.xxxv.17sul
Abstract
Understood in its broadest sense, as the amelioration or improvement of an earlier textual state, revision is a universal compositional practice. At the same time, authors’ ideas about revision, their capacity for making changes, and the changes themselves are strongly influenced by both the material circumstances of writing and by broader cultural ideas about originality and the ontology of artworks. In addition, the study of revision informs very different intellectual disciplines and methodologies: creative writing pedagogy; editorial practice; traditional biographical criticism; and genetic criticism. This chapter provides a basic typology of different types of revision and comments on the complex types of evidence with which critics have to contend.
Article outline
  • Problems of definition
  • Types of revision
  • Evidence
  • Analysis
  • Notes
  • References
References (28)
References
Austen, Jane. 1816. Mansfield Park: A Novel in Three Volumes. London: John Murray.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austen-Leigh, James Edward. 1870. A Memoir of Jane Austen. London: Bentley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2018. Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Compagnon, Antoine. 1995. “Introduction.” Romantic Review 86 (3): 393–401.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crispi, Luca. 2002. “The James Joyce Archive from an Archival Perspective.” Genetic Joyce Studies, special issue. [URL]
De Salvo, Louise. 2014. The Art of Slow Writing. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppman, Jed, Daniel Ferrer, and Michael Groden (eds). 2004. Genetic Criticism: Texts and Avant-Textes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donadio, Rachel. 2006. “The Closest Reader.” The New York Times, 10 December 2006. [URL]
Froula, Christine. 1996. “Corpse, Monument, Hypocrite Lecteur: Text and Transference in the Reception of The Waste Land.” Text 9: 297–314.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groden, Michael. 1977. Ulysses in Progress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gill, Stephen. 2011. Wordsworth’s Revisitings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Louis. 2017. “Genetic Criticism: Another Approach to Writing?” In Research on Writing: Multiple Perspectives, ed. by Sylvia Plane et al., 531–547. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse and CREM. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horne, Philip. 1990. Henry James and Revision. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, Henry. 1909. The Golden Bowl. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1881. The Portrait of a Lady, vol. 1. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1908. The Portrait of a Lady. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenner, Hugh. 1980. “An Insane Assault on Chaos.” The New York Times, 22 June 1980. [URL]
Lord, Alfred. 1962. “Homer and Other Epic Poetry.” In A Companion to Homer, ed. by Alan Wace and Frank Stubbings, 179–214. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheibe, Siegfried. 1998. “Variantendarstellung in Abhängigkeit von der Arbeitsweise des Autors und von der Überlieferung seiner Werke.” In Textgenetische Edition, ed. by Hans Zeller and Gunter Martens, 168–176. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, Hannah. 2013. The Work of Revision. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Who Do Authors Produce Textual Variation on Purpose? Or, Why Publish a Text That Is Still Unfolding?” Varia 12–13: 77–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanselle, Thomas. 1976. “The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention.” Studies in Bibliography 29: 167–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Sidney. 1984. “Shakespeare’s Supposed Revision of King Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly 35 (4): 506–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valéry, Paul. 1992. Introduction à la méthode de Léonard de Vinci, 2nd ed. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Hulle, Dirk. 2004. “Introduction: Genetic Beckett Studies.” Journal of Beckett Studies 13 (2): 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Mierlo, Wim. 2016. “The Archaeology of the Manuscript: Towards Modern Palaeography.” In The Boundaries of the Literary Archive: Reclamation and Reparation, ed. by Lisa Stead and Carrie Smith, 15–30. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wordsworth, Christopher. 1851. Memoirs of William Wordsworth, Poet Laureate. London: E. Moxon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wordsworth, William. 1854. The Poetical Works of William Wordsworth, Vol. 7. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue